GALLOPING TOWARD GOMORRAH

GARY W. SUMMERS

A few years ago Robert Bork wrote a book, the title of which came from a line of a poem, Slouching Toward Gomorrah. That image depicts a person (or society) that has made a decision in favor of immorality and has begun to travel that direction, although not hastily nor even proudly. The world is no longer sauntering in that direction; the pace has quickened, and America is not far behind the ungodly leaders of the pack. Our news and entertainment media have been extremely favorable, not to mentioned biased, in favor of the practice of homosexuality for more than a decade.

A few earnest souls, however, have been propagandized out of believing what the Bible teaches concerning this sin; so the forces of evil are accelerating their attack!

To demonstrate the truth of the above statement, consider the fact that two years ago The Dallas Morning News published this news item: "After three defeats in the House of Lords, Britain's Labor government resorted to rarely used powers on Thursday to pass legislation lowering the age of consent for gays and lesbians from 18 to 16.... The bill brings Britain in line with most other European Union nations" (Dec. 1, 2000).

Sixteen-year-olds are not mature enough at this age, either mentally or emotionally, to engage in sexual relations of any kind, let alone same-sex liaisons. Who pushed for this law to be enacted--psychiatrists, who will be needed to straighten out troubled youths who succumbed to the pressure of society, their peers, and now their government?

According to the August 19th Denton Record-Chronicle (and Paul Harvey's noon broadcast that same day), "The New York Times plans to begin publishing announcements of same-sex commitment ceremonies along with its wedding announcements" (3A). The executive editor of this newspaper stated their rationale thus: "In making this change, we acknowledge the newsworthiness of a growing and visible trend in society toward public celebrations of commitment by gay and lesbian couples--celebrations important to many of our readers, their families and their friends."

As the "church lady" would say, "Well, isn't that special?" Many people believe that prostitution should be legalized. If such were to occur, would the Times run advertisements for whores because the practice was "a growing and visible trend in society"? Many liberals and conservatives also favor legalizing drugs. Would the Times, on the basis of this logic, publish the dates and locations where junkies could come together to get "high"? Nudism is a growing trend in society today, with even "love boat" cruises being scheduled. Perhaps the Times would like to give nudists more exposure and greater visibility in their Styles section. Their families and friends would undoubtedly be honored.

Abortion has been in vogue for nearly thirty years. When has the Times published pictures of the lifeless babies that have been aborted? Have they published even a detailed description of the way abortion terminates the life of a living, breathing, human being? Why would they withhold this knowledge from their readers? A century ago, they were not so reluctant.

Carolyn Hax

The Dallas Morning News has replaced Ann Landers' column with the columns of four other writers. One of these is Carolyn Hax. Morally, she is in the same gutter with "Dear Ann," at least as it regards homosexuality. Her first column (published in this area on July 28th) featured a confused reader who confided:

I think I might be gay, but I'm a Christian. These are diametrically opposed life-styles, outlooks, behaviors, actions, thoughts!

This assessment is correct. If this confused individual wanted good advice, however, she went to the wrong source. What Carolyn Hax knows about Christianity could be put into a thimble--with plenty of room left over for her finger. Her response was:

How, exactly, is homosexuality "diametrically opposed" to being honest, patient, loving, kind, faithful, forgiving, compassionate and just? I think you need to extend several million apologies to all the gay and gay-friendly Christians out there in the world.

No, Hax needs to apologize for being so muddled as to call evil "good" and good "evil" (Isa. 5:20). In the first place, no one is a "homosexual Christian." In order to become (or remain) a Christian, one must give up sin. Christians cannot partake in that which Paul calls "a vile passion" and "against nature" (Rom. 1:26). Those in Corinth who had practiced homosexuality had ceased (1 Cor. 6:9-11). One can no more be a homosexual Christian than a drunkard Christian, a murderer Christian, an adulterer Christian, a dope addict Christian, a rapist Christian, or a child molester Christian.

Before anyone can be saved from his sins, he must repent of them (quit practicing them). Jesus said, "Unless you repent you shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). Repentance is not just feeling regret while continuing to live immorally; repentance means making changes in one's conduct. How could a sin that would condemn one in the first place be practiced after salvation without doing an equal amount of damage? On the day of Pentecost, Peter included repentance as the forerunner of baptism, in which sins are washed away (Acts 2:38). Those who become Christians become partakers of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:3-4). A Christian cannot practice the kind of purity which pleases God and wallow in corruption at the same time.

Hax tells this sincerely confused person to resolve the internal conflict expressed in the letter by broadening her thinking. In other words, to take God at His Word is too narrow. If He says, "Thou shalt not steal," should one broaden his thinking to conclude that pilfering is all right? Would not "Thou shalt not commit adultery" be changed into "Thou shalt"? It is Satan who negates God's commandments (Gen. 3:4).

Wrong is wrong! Why not let Carolyn Hax try a little of her own logic on herself? When a woman says, "No," should a guy take her word for it, or should he broaden his thinking to think, "Maybe it's okay"? Either words have assigned meanings that we all commonly understand, or they do not. If there is one moral issue about which the Bible teaches clearly, it is homosexuality. It was condemned under the Law of Moses (Lev. 20:13); but it was called a "very grievous" sin prior to that, when God destroyed Sodom (Gen. 18:20), and that destruction serves as a warning to all today who commit this sin in the Christian era (Jude 7). The Bible does not display one iota of ambiguity on this subject. Carolyn Hax is not calling for a "broadening of thinking" but for an outright rejection of the Word of God.

Hax rambles on about there being 173,000 Web sites about "gay Christians." They are all living in a fantasy of their own creation. Abortionists call themselves "Christians." So do adulterers, drunkards, and prostitutes. Not one of them, in reality, is. They have just made up their own definitions, because they have considered God's and judged them to be too narrow for the kind of enjoyment they prefer.

Jeanne Phillips

In Jezebel and Athaliah we could easily conclude, "Like mother, like daughter." The same could be said of Pauline and Jeanne Phillips, both of whom have written under the name of "Dear Abby." Both are pro-homosexual, but the daughter has kicked things up a notch.

Recently a "Heartbroken Mother" (August 15th) wrote in to ask advice about her 40-year-old homosexual son, who lives on the opposite coast. He refuses to come visit them unless he can bring his homosexual partner. The mother writes:

Don't get me wrong, Abby. I love my son and it is his choice to live his life this way. But do I have to be subject to it? Am I wrong? Does anyone else have my problem?

Let's first consider the answer that any rational person would give: "No, you are not wrong. Your son is acting like a spoiled brat. Married couples are forced to be apart for a week (or more) now and then, due to military service, visits to relatives, job seminars, etc. If he cannot be apart from his homosexual lover for a few days, he is certainly insecure and immature. Tell him that if he respected his parents, he would not force his life-style on them."

"Abby," however, does not offer a reasonable answer. If anything, she is even more biased than her mother. Would she insist that the parents tolerate this behavior if the son wanted to bring a heterosexual lover with him, or two girlfriends? What if they were drug users? Are we to believe that we now no longer have any rights concerning what occurs in our own homes?

Below is Abby's trite reply:

You are wrong. People aren't gay because they choose to be; they are gay because they are born that way.... For you to demand that he visit you without his partner is both insulting and unreasonable. If he were married, you would not insist that he visit you without his spouse. His partner is his family, too.

This kind of thinking is both distorted and dangerous. Abby thinks that, if she repeats the Big Lie often enough, somebody might believe it. The idea that a homosexual is born that way contradicts both Divine revelation and personal observation. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 demonstrates that people can quit practicing homosexuality. But where does this kind of thinking stop? Are bisexuals (Ann Heche) born that way? Are polygamists born that way? Are adulterers born that way? Are rapists born that way? Are child molesters born that way? It is past time for Abby to quit hiding behind this "born that way" sound byte and deal with the issue realistically.

"If he were married...." He is not, however, married. Even if some state authorized the shameful relationship, God has not. His "partner" is not his family. He has already had three "partners," according to the column. Does he now have three family members wandering around somewhere? If a man had had three former live-in girlfriends, would they be family members, too? Bah! A high school student could write more logical responses than this drivel.

Abby then blithely mentions the PFLAG organization, as though it is a Higher Being who can solve all problems relating to homosexuals. Actually, it is like BLACK PFLAG--only it KILLS people's first inclination to do the right thing and reject homosexuality.

What can we expect next? Abby has now told, and rather rudely at that, a husband and wife that they are not at liberty to maintain moral standards in their own home. How long will it be before attendance at "Gay Pride" parades is compulsory? How long before Hate Crimes legislation denies preachers the right to speak out against this sin in public or in worship assemblies?

Does anybody think that the city of Sodom became thoroughly perverted overnight? It probably began with counseling "professionals" trying to convince people that deviancy was normal, and it ended with refusing to allow anyone a choice in accepting or even participating in the sin. When homosexuals get the upper hand, no one will be able to stop them. Having already hardened their hearts against God and having seared their consciences against the immorality they are committing, they will feel no compunction against arresting, bearing false witness against, or imprisoning their opponents. Such events could occur within a decade.

"PRO-GAY CHURCHES WINNING"

This is the title of a tract written by Paul R. Johnson, published in Pomona, California. It says it is copyrighted but that pro-homosexual churches may reprint it without permission. So where does that leave pro-Bible groups? Usually, we like to quote something verbatim so that the reader knows we have not injected our opinions into what someone else wrote, but in this case, for fear of a lawsuit, we are forced to paraphrase.

The basis for the tract's optimism is that former opponents of homosexuality are no longer speaking out and that current opponents are being criticized for their Biblical stance. These points are possibly true, since the majority of religious denominations are more subject to culture than to the Scriptures. Most of them once stood FOR morality; now many (Bishop Spong, e.g.) are at the forefront, fighting AGAINST morality.

Johnson affirms that there are five Scriptures that condemn homosexual abuse--not homosexuality. He has obviously created his own reality (he thinks). The words, homosexual abuse, are not in the Bible; homosexuality is the sin. Anyone reading the texts can make that determination for himself. Like any false teacher, he tries to redefine key words to fit his theology.

He suggests that Jude's reference to "strange flesh," for example, refers to bestiality. The Greek words mean, literally, "other flesh" (heteros sarx). Such a description might include bestiality, but it certainly cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be restricted to such a definition. We cannot ignore the larger context of the passage to which it refers. In Genesis 19, the men of the city did not surround a herd of sheep; they demanded the two male visitors. They wanted flesh other than that which God designed for men. These attempts at perverting the Scriptures would be hilarious--if such speculations were not taken seriously by those who lack the knowledge to resist such tripe.

Dr. Johnson alleges that the Song of Solomon includes a section in which two men engage in sex with the writer's approval, an idea which is not only absurd but blasphemous as well, as Johnson will discover when he stands before the throne of God some day (2 Cor. 5:10). He also implies that David and Jonathan were lovers. Even if this nauseating assertion were true (but it is not), it would only prove that David was bisexual, since he had one wife before these verses and several after.

Johnson makes one true statement in his tract: "TRUTH HAS NOTHING TO FEAR." The problem is that he cannot discern Truth. Like so many others, he has tried to get the Bible to match his viewpoint. He is among those who twist, wrench, and distort the Word of God (2 Peter 3:16). The difference between him and those to whom the apostle refers is that he practices it upon Scriptures that are easy to understand.